OAN’s Abril Elfi
2:42 PM – Wednesday, December 6, 2023
Prince Harry has challenged the U.K.’s High Court after they decided to downgrade his security protection when he moved to the United States, saying it was an “unfair” ruling.
Advertisement
According to Harry’s attorney, Shaheed Fatima, the prince’s security needs, also known as the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), treated him unfairly and neglected to abide by its own guidelines, which called for a risk assessment regarding the Duke of Sussex’s security.
“RAVEC should have considered the ‘impact’ that a successful attack on the claimant would have, bearing in mind his status, background and profile within the royal family – which he was born into and which he will have for the rest of his life,” Fatima said. “RAVEC should have considered, in particular, the impact on the U.K.’s reputation of a successful attack on the claimant.”
Government Attorney James Eadie stated that the prince “should be placed in a bespoke position and that bespoke arrangements be… specifically tailored to him.”
“He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review,” Eadie continued.
He continued, explaining that there was a cost factor since “security funds are not unlimited” and that he has received protection for specific occasions, such as his visit in June 2021, when he attended a charity event for ill children at Kew Gardens in London and was pursued by photographers.
Harry argued that the committee unfairly denied his security request and did not disclose the panel’s composition.
He also stated that the assistant private secretary to the late Queen Elizabeth II, Edward Young, should not have been on the committee due to “significant tensions” between them.
The Home Office has maintained that since Harry had given up his position as a family worker, any conflicts he may have had with the employees of the royal household were unimportant and the committee had the right to make its decision.
A judge is expected to make a ruling on the case at a later date. The date was not disclosed to the press.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
By: OAN
